Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/20/1976CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 20, 1976 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, September 20, 1976, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul A. Farrar, Chairman; Frank H. Armstrong, John B. Dinklage, Michael D. Flaherty, Catherine M. Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Richard Spokes, City Attorney; Paul Graves, Chairman, Sign Review Board; James Wesson, Tom Brown, Al Marlow, Dick Cummings, Ruth DesLauriers, Richard H. Thomas, D. J. Newell, Frederick Cook, Everett Mitchell, Peter Matta, L. M. Field, Frank W. Plumley, Debbie Simpson, Robert C. Nowak, George Khouri, Fred Blais, Debra Weiner, Franklyn C. McCaffrey The meeting was opened by the Chairman at 8:20 p.m. An addition to the Agenda was requested by the City Manager concerning the acquisition of land for the industrial road. Council members agreed to this addition, to the executive session agenda. Chairman Farrar apologized to the people present for the meeting starting so late, explaining it was because the Zoning Board meeting had run past 8:00 p.m., tying up the Conference Room and some of the personnel. Interview Mr. Nowak, applicant for Airport Liaison Committee The Council interviewed Mr. Nowak for membership on the Airport Liaison Committee. In response to questions Mr. Nowak stated that noise was not the only concern but that all facets of the operation of the airport would be of concern to him. Minutes of September 7, 1976 Mr. Flaherty moved that the Minutes of September 7, 1976, be accepted as presented. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously for approval. Disbursement orders It was noted by the Chairman that the Disbursement orders had been prepared for signatures. Discussion with Sign Review Board members regarding proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance The City Attorney was also present for the discussion. Copies of a list of non-conforming signs were distributed, also a five-page report from Mr. Ward containing the proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance and the reasons for these proposed changes. The document was reviewed by Mr. Graves, Mr. Ward, and Mr. Spokes. It was noted that the Sign Review Board had felt returning to the limit of 60 square feet which had been allowed up to three years ago would make many of the present non-conforming signs legal; also increasing the 60 square feet to 64 would be more consistent with the stock sizes of sign material. By encouraging more wall signs the Board had hoped to get away from so many freestanding signs, with a proposed limit of 200 rather than the present 100sq.ft. in cases where there is no freestanding sign. Mr. Ward said a former consultant to the Sign Ordinance Committee had at that time emphasized that having everyone put up a graphic on the building would increase the aesthetic appearance of the town but that something would have to be given to the owner to encourage this; this was the reasoning behind doubling the allowance for the wall sign. The traffic hazard of a small sign was mentioned, also the unfairness of a firm not being allowed space enough to identify the business by its full name, also the need for a business located farther back from the road to have a sign which could be seen. Several examples of this were cited where the public must either know where the business is or spend time searching for it because the sign cannot be seen from the road. Mr. Graves said promotional signs had been a problem; there had been many violations. A promotional window sign would be allowed for 25% of the window area with a permit issued for 30 days. A permanent promotional sign, such as for a gas station, could be permanently affixed with the location to be approved by the Sign Review Board. Mr. Farrar questioned a promotional sign for a business having no freestanding sign, only a wall sign, how would the provision work. Mr. Ward said such a firm would not be allowed a permanent promotional sign but would be covered by the temporary window sign provision. Mrs. Neubert asked what the present height limit was. Mr. Ward explained it is 15 feet; they are proposing a maximum of 20 feet only if the sign goes to 64 square feet. The height allowed would be based on sign size with the height to be determined by the Board. He said 40 square feet at 15 is not bad but 10 square feet at 15 would be bad. Mr. Armstrong asked where the height was measured from and Mr. Ward answered it is the ground level itself, not from anything banked up around the sign. Mr. Graves said they had tried to come up with a formula for allowing large signs by considering things like size of property, distance back from the road, etc., but had given it up as being too complicated because there are so many irregularities in the various lots. The legal aspects of requiring the nonconforming signs to be removed by 1978 were discussed by the City Attorney. He explained the recommendation of the Board to "grandfather" in the nonconforming signs which were only nonconforming because of size; other signs which could be made nonconforming simply by changing the location or removing noon lights, for example, would not be included in this "grandfathering" provision. Mr. Spokes cited a case where a District Court Judge had indicated that the State had to compensate the owner; the State appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals but after a careful look at the situation decided not to pursue the appeal. While this decision had probably zeroed in on the Federal laws, it does indicate a tendency the courts to abide by the principle of compensation for property rather than upholding the municipality. He said his office had done a lot of research on this and for every case where the court upheld the municipality, there would be another case of similar facts where the court had ruled against the municipality, and it is impossible to extract anything of any significance on which way the court may go in Vermont. He explained that when the ordinance was being prepared it was decided not to include the sign regulations as part of the zoning ordinance. If they were included in the zoning ordinance a granting of variances authority would have to be included, and it was felt by the Council and the sign drafting committee at that time that such was not their desire; so if the enabling authority is not in the planning act and not in the zoning act, it was based on some language in the Charter and also on some regulatory granting authority in the State Statutes. There is authority by State Statute and by City Charter to enact ordinances to regulate signs and billboards, but in looking at this. Mr. Spokes said, he was concerned that it does not specifically say "prohibit" it says "regulate." So, he said, he has concern there; there would have to be the enabling authority from the State to do something, and that would be one concern the court would have. His second concern was that for every case that seemed to be negative, there was a positive case, so he couldn't give any opinion as to which way a court might go. With the present language in the ordinance which requires all nonconforming signs to come down by a definite date — he would be very uncomfortable about going to court by that. If the City chooses to still phase out nonconforming signs, that language should be rewritten to zero in on a more individualistic basis by looking at each sign, when was it purchased, for how much, what is the investment return, etc. In looking at the individual sign and the owner's individual situation, it might be five years for one and ten for another. He said he thought the courts were more inclined to uphold an amortization clause which is more individualistic than ours is. Mr. Flaherty said it was being treated as one class of nonconforming signs to come down in 1978. He asked what was the formula being used for compensation by the State. Both Mr. Spokes and Mr. Graves said they did not know. Chairman Farrar suggested that Council ask the Sign Review Board to bring back this information. Mr. Spokes explained his feeling was that the present language is inadequate to accomplish the purpose if it was necessary to go to court with it, and no matter how much work went into redrafting it, it would have only a 50-50 chance in court. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Spokes what he meant by prohibiting. Mr. Spokes referred to the section of the Charter stating the powers the City has, it does not say regulate and prohibit, it says regulate. The Statutes gives a list of 12 to 14 similar powers which municipalities in Vermont have the authority to adopt. In reading through that list it leaves out the words regulate and prohibit, and in coming to signs it says regulate and prohibit, prohibit as far as sign are over roads and sidewalks, but where it relates to other matters it just uses the word regulate. It is conceivable they meant you can prohibit in some instances or regulate in others. When you prohibit you are saying you have to take that sign down. He said he didn't think the City was into a compensation area, the issue was not raised, but the City could act under the general police power and compensate an owner for property which is being taken away in the public interest. Mr. Dinklage raised the question of greater compensation being asked in a case where a business might collapse without the sign. Mr. Spokes said the owner could go to court and the court might find the sign was worth more than the fair market value which had been determined. Loss of business would be one determining factor. Mrs. Neubert asked if the City was considering paying for the signs, must the owner's future possible loss be taken into consideration. Mr. Spokes said he was not recommending that situation at all. His recommendation was to rewrite the language, but even with more effort and more careful work he was not sure how successful it would be, and perhaps this should have some bearing on the thinking and in the recommendations of the Sign Review Board. Their recommendation is to "grandfather" in the nonconforming signs. Mrs. Neubert asked if reader boards were prohibited. Mr. Ward replied they are not prohibited but must be within the 40 square feet. Mr. Spokes said the Shelburne Road situation is heading for the courts; that would more indication of the constitutional issues and be more of a precedent than the Federal court decision, but that is two years away. Mrs. Neubert asked about the people who want their lights on Dealers. Mr. Ward said they had received a request from the Automobile Association because it would not only cut down on some of the activity around their property at night but the lighted signs would serve as identification and promotion even though the business is not open in the evening. They felt it was unfair to turn off the lighted signs when they closed at five o'clock when a restaurant could have its lights on until closing time much later. He noted this applied only to illuminated signs, not to lights in the parking lot which have nothing to do with the sign ordinance. The proposed amendment would allow businesses which close earlier to leave a freestanding sign lighted until midnight. Mr. Ward said some people who had installed a 40 sq. ft. sign under the present ordinance would be happy to keep that and use the extra allowance under the proposed amendment for an additional sign; others would change their present sign for a new 64 sq. ft. sign. In some cases the business does not own the sign, it is owned by the franchise which might furnish the new larger sign at no cost to the owner. Mr. Matta explained most standard signs are made of 8' x 8' material and it would be cheaper if the owners all bought standard signs. A custom made sign of a certain size could cost as much as $500. He explained he had to pay for his own sign but some oil companies pay for the station signs while other stations are individually owned and the owners would pay for their signs. Mr. Ward stated a person putting in a 40 foot sign could probably have a 64 foot sign for the same money. Chairman Farrar asked if the Board had given any consideration to the aspect of something like the State highway signs which direct people to locations off the main highway. Mr. Ward replied that could be a simple amendment, but at present off-premises signs are not allowed. Mr. Farrar said he believed this had not been brought up at the original sign ordinance hearing but had been brought up at the last hearing when it was too late to include it without another warned hearing. Mrs. Neubert asked how many of the people in the audience at this meeting were sign people. Mr. Ward replied most of the people in the audience had worked with the Sign Review Board since January; there had been five or six meetings with the different groups. Mr. Spokes mentioned the pressure by those in a group who have conformed to the sign requirements on those members who have not conformed; that this is a good thing. Chairman Farrar asked that the Board come back in two weeks with the information about the State compensation. He then said he wanted some sense of the Council's feeling as to whether the members wished to discuss and entertain any or all of these proposed changes. Mr. Dinklage said along the lines of more information before making a decision on nonconforming structures, he would like to have the opportunity to see the best language that the Board could come up with to convey the sense of the municipality and have the best chance of standing up in court. Mr. Ward said he would like to have the whole package put together and warn it for public hearing; there may be things in there that will not pass but he would like the opportunity to have a public hearing. Chairman Farrar said the way to proceed was to get some input and then discuss the proposals and get them into some reasonable shape, then there could certainly be a public hearing. He would like to do this in a public way because many times they get to the public hearing stage when they are already to pass something and something comes up which is not serious enough to turn down the whole thing for another hearing; this time he would like to get the good suggestions out ahead of time. Mr. Ward said he had been telling the interested people that it would come up relatively soon; they had been working on this for nine months and he hoped to have something soon. Chairman Farrar said that, assuming the questions could be answered, the Council would discuss it at the next meeting, each point in detail as to whether the specific language is agreeable or whether there are points of disagreement. They can work through the process at the next meeting and possibly get to the point where a month from now there could be a formally warned public hearing. At the next meeting when this is discussed, Council would like to receive public input, get some dialogue. Mrs. Neubert asked if they considered promotional signs as temporary signs. Mr. Ward said they were saying that a promotional sign of 12 square feet would be permanent, but are also addressing the matter of sale signs, paper signs in the window. Mr. Khouri said his firm is currently nonconforming in six or seven communities. South Burlington is not unique; other communities have the same problem. He said there are different ways of attacking the issue; there are many ways to compensate an individual rather than by financial compensation. Mr. Matta referred to his recent experience with a sign in Nashua, N.H. and said he would get a copy of the ordinance that city has. Mr. Richard Thomas stated he was representing Mrs. DesLauriers of the Quarry Hill Club and he felt that in some situations there should be a provision for a variance or at least a recommendation that some uses are unique and Quarry Hill Club is a good example. It is impossible to have a sign set way back from the right of way and still meet the other requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Fred Blais agreed, pointing to the Green Tree Pet Center and the Sizzling Steak restaurant as examples of the problem of visibility of signs, although they conform exactly to the ordinance. They are in a legally zoned area but are being treated inequitably. Depth and visibility should be weighted factors to be considered. Mr. Dinklage said he had not realized that no matter how large is a sign is allowed for a multiple use development there is no guarantee that each and every property in the development is going to have space on that one freestanding sign. Mr. Ward explained the purpose of one identification sign such as the one at University Mall and everything else within the mall gets a wall sign. Mr. Dinklage asked about the difference in rent structure for a business facing inward in a shopping center and being unable to advertise effectively with wall signs. Mr. Matta said it could work either way but the rent factor was important. He stressed that people were looking for some help from the Sign Review Board rather than trying to get away with something. They really were asking for help. Review Williston Road-Dorset Street intersection Cost — Chairman Farrar said he had asked Mr. Szymanski to review the cost of the proposed recommendations of the Williston Road Task Force. Mr. Szymanski said he had made slight modifications in the area where the Task Force had recommended five lanes. He was recommending widening the area by removing the grass strip between the curb and the sidewalks, having the curb right up against the sidewalk. Mrs. Neubert objected that a sidewalk right up against the curb was not safe. Mr. Szymanski gave the following estimates: $40,000 for the improvements plus $30,000 for signalization, or a total of $70,000 plus the cost of land. That was a rough estimate, he said. The man he had contacted was not in favor of the recommendations for the crossover from the ramps into the Holiday Inn because he was concerned about the backup on the ramps and also on U. S. 2. Other than that he had no objections. Mr. Szymanski said he was expecting written recommendations on this; the State has to approve them and give South Burlington permission to do them. The road is South Burlington's but the State has to agree. Asked why this was so, he said it is because the City has an agreement with the State to maintain the road and also to seek permission for any improvements. Procedure — Mr. Flaherty moved that Council ask the City Manager to submit the recommendations of the Williston Road Task Force for the Williston Road- Dorset Street intersection to the Urban Systems Agency for assistance in funding. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Mrs. Neubert asked if Council was submitting these figures, for an amount of money, when it didn't know what the project would really cost. Mr. Farrar explained Council would be just voting to submit the application it is not necessary to submit a firm figure; they will make an estimate of what it will cost and ask the City to come up with 15% of the cost. At that point Council decides what it wants to do. This application does not negate the possibility of also applying for funding under the Federal Works Projects Act. Asked by Mr. Dinklage about a time estimate. Mr. Szymanski said perhaps within a month they should hear something, some indication, because he is sure they realize the urgency. The motion was voted unanimously for approval. Environmental permits — Mr. Graves was asked to read aloud his permit which was different than that received by University Mall. His permit contained no time limit. Chairman Farrar said this would have to be discussed with the Regional Planning Traffic Engineer to get his opinion as to whether or not these improvements would relieve the congestion caused by Mr. Graves' development; then Council could certify to the Environmental Commission that these improvements, when completed, would satisfy the problem. Mr. Graves said they didn't make a finding that traffic is going to generate unreasonable congestion; he had moved the intersection, moved the islands, and given the 15 foot strip. Bruce Houghton had never indicated they were going to generate any congestion. Chairman Farrar said he just wanted to make sure Mr. Graves had everything. Mr. Szymanski will take care of contacting the traffic engineer and asking him to certify specifically in writing that the completion of these improvements in his opinion will alleviate any congestion which might be caused by Mr. Graves' construction. Mr. Farrar then asked Mr. Khouri if he had any figures concerning the additional load his development would place on the intersection. Mr. Khouri said his figures agreed essentially with Mr. Houghton's figures; what they disagree on is the peak hour periods. He did not have his figures with him at this meeting. Mr. Farrar said his understanding was that nine months prior to the date the Council certifies these improvements would be completed. Mr. Khouri's permit would be effective. Council can't send a letter until nine months prior to the completion of the improvements. Mr. Khouri said he couldn't start until the letter was sent and that was why he was suggesting that Council send a letter saying the work will be done, but Council doesn't know when and request that the time limit be eliminated. Mr. Dinklage said from Council's point of view it is not unreasonable to make that determination of time but that Mr. Khouri was caught in a vise. Mr. Khouri said the City recognizes the work has to be done whether his development is there or not, whenever it becomes financially feasible or from a time standpoint to do the work. All he was asking, he said, was to be allowed to start construction, that Council ask the Commission to eliminate this time limit. They are committed to open by the summer of 1977 and have already been given two extensions. They are in a position right now of being within a week or two weeks of getting into the ground. If they wait until spring and try to construct in a clay pit, there is no way they can start construction then to make the time, they have to start right away. He asked again, if City Council is in agreement that the work has to be done and is going to be done, why Council couldn't send a letter stating they agreed but they were requesting the time limit be eliminated. Mr. Farrar said Council could certainly send a letter outlining the steps presently taken and say that in our estimation these improvements would not be completed because of the time scheduling prior to a hear from now, and that it might take two years. At this point Mr. Khouri could then ask for a modification of the permit under those conditions. Mr. Dinklage asked about the possibility of the City's application for Urban Systems funding being rejected. Mr. Farrar explained there is so much money available every year in the State but several of these large projects are several years away, so he felt there was a good chance of being funded. He felt a vote to include $15,000 in the operating budget for next year could be offered as back-up. It could not be said they were going to appropriate $100,000 next year as there was no way to back that up. Mr. Khouri said he thought the situation with Urban Systems funding was that the more money was used in a State, the more becomes available, because that is what is wanted, but it does take time to get approval. It is not known now whether the State is going to approve this kind of improvement. Mr. Farrar said it would be a matter of assuring the Commission what the City's intent was — and Mr. Khouri would have the right to take it from there. Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council agree to include up to $15,000 in next year's operating budget for the City's share of the funds necessary under the Urban Systems Act to make the improvements on the Williston Road-Dorset Street intersection as outlined in the Williston Road Task Force report, and that in addition the City Manager be directed to convey by letter to the District Environmental Board that the City is applying for funds for this project, to complete this project, and it is estimated that the earliest probable completion would be September, 1977, and that it may be that completion could not be until sometime thereafter, perhaps even into September, 1978. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously for approval. Review of Zoning Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission agendas Mr. Ward reviewed the circumstances of the appeals on the next agenda of the Zoning Board and Council felt there was nothing that would warrant them to take a position on any of these. A discussion took place on how Council should become a party to any appeal, also a discussion concerning hardship, how it might be created, and how it was determined by the Board. In reviewing the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting it was also felt that no action need be taken by Council. Consideration of projects under the Public Works Employment Act Mr. Szymanski said he picked the following projects mainly because they were of short duration; street reconstruction, $300,000; water mains, $102,000; construction of City record storage, $25,000; Williston Road improvements, $100,000; maintenance garage, $40,000. Mr. Flaherty said the recommendation was that no project be under $100,000, with the average project being a quarter of a million, and nothing to be over half a million. Council suggested that Mr. Szymanski combine several of these projects in the application. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council ask the City Manager at his discretion to submit the projects he has just outlined for Council to the Public Works Employment Act for funding. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Dinklage then amended his motion by adding: that the City Manager be asked to notify the Retional Planning Commission that South Burlington is actually applying for funding for the Dorset Street-Williston Road intersection. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong. Motion was voted unanimously for approval. Sign application for engineering for the University Mall traffic light to be undertaken as an Urban Systems Project Mr. Szymanski said there was no right of way involved, it was basically just engineering. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council sign the application for engineering for the University Mall traffic light, to be undertaken as an Urbans Systems Project. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Consider going into executive session Mr. Flaherty moved that Council adjourn the regular session and go into executive session for the purpose of discussing appointments to the Airport Liaison Committee and also to discuss land acquisition for the industrial road; at which point Council will reconvene the regular session only for the purpose of making appointments to the Airport Liaison Committee. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and voted unanimously. The regular session was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. and reconvened at 11:05 p.m. Mr. Flaherty moved that the following people be appointed to the Airport Liaison Committee: Robert C. Nowak, Dennis Renaud, Thomas D. Schroeder, Nicholas J. Morris, James Cressey, Beverly Guest, Kenneth W. Jarvis, and also that Vincent D'Acuti, South Burlington's representative to the Airport Commission, be included as a member of the Airport Liaison Committee. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and voted unanimously for approval. The Council meeting was declared adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.